Are D&D rulebooks stuck in the 70's?

[Wulf Ratbane]

In the campaigns I have run (and am running), the females may be more combat-loving than the males (it would be close, but no male player exceeds my wife's love of hack-n-slash).

Just my 1/2 cent...

I have the good fortune to be playing in Piratecat's campaign now, and went in with the assumption that this wasn't a combat-lovin' group.

So I toned back my character quite a bit from my usual style.

Erroneous assumption... Now everybody (guys and gals alike) kicks ass but me.

 

[Wormwood]

"Stuck in the Seventies"?

How about "Hearken to the Golden Age"?

When I want heavy roleplaying and storytelling, I play games suited for those things---the market is full of 'em.

When I want to *game*, I have a home in 3e.

 

[Fenes 2]

My games usually only feature one combat per session, if at all, no matter the system. One of my players recently announced that his next PC would not take any combat feats, and the latest session of one of my campaigns drove the point home. Instead of preparing a big fight between two armies where the PCs could be the decisive factor I should have concentrated on the interaction between the various NPCs and PCs in the army - my players were not that amused by the 2-hours long fight.

As far as I can judge it, I do not need most of the crunchy combat rules.

 

[johnsemlak]

I firmly believe (and would like to see you're guys' experiences) that D&D is not played in the dungeons that much anymore - it's played with skills MUCH more than in combat.

Uhhh, you're saying Dungeons and Dragons is not played in Dungeons, anymore?

Next thing people will want to take out is dragons. Sheesh

 

[kengar]

Re: Re: Are D&D rulebooks stuck in the 70's?

Uhhh, you're saying Dungeons and Dragons is not played in Dungeons, anymore?

Next thing people will want to take out is dragons. Sheesh

Don't laugh. I know several gamers who dislike 3e dragons.

The most intense example is my co-DM for the above-mentioned campaign. He has made it very clear to the group he does NOT use dragons, so they can forget about hoards, etc. He hates 'em and thinks they are totally broken in 3e.

His opinion, not mine.

EDIT: I should clarify that his proscription doesn't cover our "shared" world, just campaigns he has run as sole DM.

 

[JohnClark]

As someone mentioned earlier, there are alot more rules for combat because roleplaying can be done with no dice rolls at all if you like, but combat requires a great deal more in the way of rules and regulations.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Dungeons, forgotten temples of long gone evil gods, abandoned ancient underground cities, etc. That's where the funis at! I have had my complaints about 3e but the games focus isn't one of them.

 

[Psion]

I agree skills get used a lot. But I still see combat as a major activity.

It's really a matter of baby stepping into more skill-oriented gameplay. 2e's proficiency system was really more of a feat system than a skill system, so in 2e it really didn't facilitate skill use.

 

[Davelozzi]

My game tends to be more combat oriented, although sometimes I wish it wasn't. The last session I ran would have been the first one without a battle but it was clear that eveyone would have felt like it wasn't really a session without one so we had to throw one in at the end.

 

[The Sigil]

In any given session, there may be more combat than skills or more skills than combat, but over several sessions (or over a campaign), I've found that I have them in equal proportions - or if they're not EXACTLY equal, it's so darn close I can't tell the difference (if I spent 1001 minutes in combat and 1002 minutes in skills stuff, I call that "exactly equal" because I can't notice a difference that small).

Then again, I count things like Disarming Traps, Searching rooms, and so forth in a "dungeon bash" as skill use just as much as Bluff/Diplomacy with the town mayor and Sense Motive in "investigative" adventures as "skill use."

--The Sigil